perception_is_not_reality daf This is the first of a four part series. There was a saying that an old surpervisor of mine was very attached to. That saying was, "Perception is reality." He was, not too surprisingly, a Virgo. He was also, at the time, a project manager whose main concern was that the upper management types be pleased. It didn't matter to him that the project was falling apart, as long as the management bigwigs didn't think that it was. Reality and perception are miles apart. This can be easily demonstrated through something as simple as a journey through one's own lifetime. A game that parents often play with their new babies is called PEEK-A-BOO. This game amuses infants for hours at a time, mainly because at that point in the development of their understanding, they do not realize that something which cannot be seen, still exists. To the baby's perception, once you cease to appear, you must be gone, and so when you suddenly appear in front of them, it is a source of surprise and wonder. To us, it is a silly game. To them, it is magic. How many of us can forget how we were suckered in by the ads for the latest doo-dad, gizmo or thinga-ma-bob? So amazing, even in the package, right in front of our eyes..then disillusionment. Not everything that our mind is told and comes to believe to be true, is true. We often find ourselves the butt of our own imagination's creations. Remember that dream guy/gal that turned out to be the dud from the seventh plane of Hell? They were what they were, not what we imagined them to be. Even though their own actions may have played a part in the masquerade of their true nature, still, when the veil was lifted, what was, was what had always been. There IS Truth, and to be honest, PERCEPTION and BELIEF have probably LIED to us more often than they have told us the Truth. If more examples will help to drive this point home, take the average Joe's impression of the so-called "occult" arts..astrology for one. How many remember being on THAT side of disbelief? Remember, though, that disbelief from one perspective, is also BELIEF from another perspective. Both are deceptive. You cannot know Truth through belief. Belief is a roadblock more often than not and perception is it's accomplice. Beliefs are hard things to alter once they've set up camp. They harden into a shape and then anything which lies outside of that basic mold becomes irrational to our mind. We doubt things which don't fit our beliefs. To see an oak desk and believe that it is solid, is patently false. We know this. There is a great deal of space between the molecules, and also between the electrons that form the outer shell of the atoms and the nucleus of those atoms. A "solid" oak desk is composed mostly of empty space. But just 200 years ago, trying to tell people that there was more empty space than oak where that desk stood would have been almost impossible. They simply would not have BELIEVED it. Why? Because they could not have PERCEIVED of it. Such a thing boggles the mind and goes against what the brain deems to be rational. Well, DID deem to be rational, until we proved otherwise. Now what was once inconceivable is considered common knowledge among "educated" individuals. Don't think for a second that BELIEF and PERCEPTION have stopped lying to you, or the rest of the human race, simply because you are more "open-minded" than most. Belief and perception are the epitomy of DECEPTION.. particularly when they choose to disregard the Truth, in favor of something that the mind finds more easily digested. Usually something that is more in line with what the mind already believes to be true. Many, many years ago, someone told the story of six blind men who came upon an elephant. Having never known an elephant before, each reached out to know what an elephant might be. The first leaned against it's broad, sturdy side and, based on his perception, believed that an elephant must be like a wall. The second reached out and felt the smooth, round shaft and sharp point of the elephant's tusk. Based on his perception, he believed that an elephant must be like a spear. The third man reached out and took the animal's squirming trunk in his hands and percieved it to be like a snake. So that's what he believed that an elephant must be like. The fourth man reached out and wrapped his arms around the elephant's thick leg. With that perception in his mind, the man believed that the elephant was certainly and most obviously like a tree. The fifth blind man's face brushed against the animal's ear. Reaching up and feeling around the ear, it seemed very obvious, based upon his perception, that an elephant, must be like a fan. The sixth man's opinion was, in the end, just as wrong as the rest, for he had found the tail. Based upon his perception, he believed an elephant to be very much like a rope. They spent the rest of the afternoon arguing about whose opinion held the most merit, since a fan was obviously not a snake and a rope was obviously not a tree, nor was a spear a wall. Hour after hour the debate raged, and in the end, none of them believed that the others were half as right as he. They were, of course all a little right, but all dead wrong. Even if they had STOPPED arguing and agreed that each had the right to believe in his own way, they would have certainly STILL been dead wrong. Reasonable, but still wrong. See, the Truth is not what you perceive it to be, nor will your belief help you see past perception to the Truth. An elephant is an elephant, regardless of what you believe it to be and in spite of your perception. An elephant is what it is despite your willingness to let another believe that an elephant is something other than what an elephant actually is. This is the first of four posts in the course of which Truth will be revealed. This Truth is not my belief, because I haven't been able to bring myself to believe it yet. Some truths fly in the face of beliefs that are so deeply rooted in the human psyche, that although you can understand them and know them to be true, believing them is significantly more difficult. As I've said before, seeing the door is the first step, opening it is another...but walking through the door is a MUCH more difficult proposition and in the end, the only one that matters. 050725 ... daf This information is part of a four part series. The four posts are titled: Perception_is_NOT_reality Of_Fate Of_Freewill and Divine_Perception. 050725 ... Doar .read. 050725 ... pete . 050725 ... andru235 since no one has ever witnessed the mythic "one true reality", it can only be supported by faith. and given that others have faith in multiple realities, can there really be any concensus on these matters? the perception that you are seeing reality is "your true reality", whether or not it later becomes false. indeed, every moment could be called false upon its passage. is yesterday true? unverifiable under the terms of 'proof'. since whatever we are currently experiencing is the bulk of our "waking life", it is dangerous to dismiss hallucination and delusion as 'unreal'. if it wasn't real, you wouldn't be perceiving it. the question is more about how that perception relates to the perception of others... that is, the only "true reality" would necessarily have to include all perceptions and perspectives (even when contradictory). otherwise, it would be missing a factor of itself and not, in fact, be reality. the clash of perceptions between different people readily leads both to desire that their perception alone is 'truth', and their opponent's to be 'false'. the desire for 'one true reality' is little more than that: a desire. and, true to the paradoxic realms we inhabit, if reality is merely a desire, it is not real, yet it is real, all the same. the belief that one is perceiving the "one true reality" is the surest delusion of all; exempt i am not! so you can totally disregard this; yet doing so offers the confirmation i have not sought. which negates, then confirms...irritating scientist and priest alike. 050725 ... misstree the root comes from using these terms like "reality," "truth," and "is" and all its conjunctions... the difference between "the desk *is* a solid *reality*" and "i percieve that this desk acts in a solid manner" opens many concepts... 050725 ... REAListic optimIST the very concepts of "is" and "is not" are the unfortunate byproducts of our attempt to put the world into boxes and strictly defined categories. clearly, we know not enough about reality to even begin to believe that our classification constructs are rigid enough to hold water. the ever flowing reality just permeates our boundaries until we, too can see past the limits of our own constructs. certainly it helps to be able to point to something and say "that is," if you are helping to define or flesh out a something. however, i find it difficult to attatch "isness" to reality. for instance, is one's pontification considered to be perception? or is perception limited to the five senses? all senses must go through the brain to be complete... and how can anyone argue for or against a reality outside one's own perception with validity? it seems a flawed base to even begin, as the more evidence one seeks, the farther removed form the source it becomes. ah well, this is just another false facet to the ever glistening wonder that is the search for meaning. says: thou_art_god 050725 ... andru235 i agree with the limitations of these words, but most of us do not 'think' in words. at least, i don't. when i invent music in my head, i invent it via feeling; the staff and dots are a later process. similar to other stuff...i see a sphere, but only have a word for 'circle', and when i talk of the circle, people argue the points, saying it is a line! yet i see a sphere, there merely isn't a word for it. i'm not alone in this. so discussions such as these are delightful yet trying (to me) because they are like trying to have sex while clad in chain mail, iron gauntlets, steel boots and a helmet. i might like what you are doing with your hand but with that gauntlet on (aka language) i am not liking it at all. 050725 ... REAListic optimIST i agree that we think outside of words, however words help to frame our constructs, and influence our thoughts and paradigms. changing language can, in fact, change mindset. so although i appreciate your point about language only being a barrier to thought if you allow it to be, i posit that our thoughts stick to those barriers even as they flow past. an interesting book dealing with frames with regard to language and politics is called "Don't Think of an Elephant." I highly recommend the book. 050725 ... z see: nuance_is_not_precision 050726 ... epitome_of_incomprehensibility I read that elephant poem you mentioned; it was not only funny, but it presented an interesting concept. Those poor guys had a limited perception, because they were blind, so they had no idea what the animal was. Now, let's say someone who can see percieves the elephant. He is limited,too; he only knows what the elephant looks like. He has no idea of knowing what the elephant is thinking or feeling, or what exact role elephants play in the balance of life on Earth... in other words, he can't know all that there is to know about it. Human beings are terribly limited too; even though we are constantly making important discoveries about the world we live in, we're never really sure exactly how things work. (I'm thinking of theoretical science in particular. Not 1+1=2!) Anyway, sometimes it isn't necessary for us to have detailed knowledge of an object. For example, the table. Someone may not know that it consists of mostly empty space, but for all practical purposes it is solid enough to put dishes on. Of course, the matter in those dishes is mostly empty space as well... "We see through a glass darkly." (Even though the said glass is admittedly insubstantial.) My attempt at philosophy for today. 050726 ... DannyH Few would disagree with your statement of ultimate relativism. Clearly we all create truth-worlds based on observation, precedent, acceptance of trusted sources and inference. All of these things are subject to flaws. I don't think that is really going to come as news to anyone who's even begun to question their place in the universe. We have no choice but to attempt to form some kind of consistent model, however, or we render ourselves incapable of forming a relationship with any kind of object, let alone another human being. My fear is that in parts 2, 3 and 4 you are going to use relativism as an argument for the validity of whatever kooky spiritualist fad you've got yourself caught up in this month. Astrology, numerology, copper bracelets for rheumatism etc. do not become any more likely to be true just because you accept that there is no perceivable absolute truth. If anything it means they have to fight just as hard as any other theory to be accepted as truth. Knowledge of how easily our senses can be fooled should lead us to require higher, not lower standards of proof. I may be wrong about where you're going with this, but you already seem to have contradicted yourself by promising us the truth, then telling us that there is no truth so I'm expecting something pretty far out to follow. I'm looking forward to it... 050727 ... daf Would that we could observe with open minds, without the baggage of our unfortunate past experiences and stalwart beliefs steering us to some not-so-accurate conclusions about what can and cannot be. A man who had been abused horribly from birth was told of the nature of love. That it was glorious and illuminated everything it touched. That in its purest form, it is indestructible, in its finest hour, it is indescribable. Well the abused man had never known love. Didn't know what it was like, not even the slightest inkling. Being locked in a closet for years awaiting the next beating can have that affect on a person. Now to his experience, he had thought he had known what love was before, but it hadn't turned out that way, and the pain had been more than his tortured heart was able to handle. Having been fooled by his senses before, he felt it was his obligation to spare himself the heartache by examining things much more closely. As the years went by, he tried and was fooled, tried and was fooled so often that he had become very skeptical. Very, very skeptical. "There is no such thing as love. Leave it to you to entertain such nonsense. Look, women are only good for a few things, and you see, feel, taste and smell them all. So unless you've got a large bottle of love in your pocket, your wasting your time. I'm not interested." Now most of us know that such a notion is silly. Of course love is real, and of course it can be everything that the man said it could be. But, as our abused friend had learned it can also be many things that the man hadn't mentioned that it could be too. But because of his experiences with his own inability to perceive love...he had come to the conclusion that there was no love at all. (Danny, you'll notice yourself repeating some of those tactics I mentioned in what_is_art. ie. astrology, numerology, copper bracelets for rheumatism..etc. Again, trying to give the impression that you are conversing with a quack is an convenient tactic if the quack is educated on a subject and you are not. As mentioned before, people that resort to such tactics aren't usually standing on very solid ground philisophically and usually have nothing to bring to the table but jeers, judgements and insulting names. (You'll notice a similarity to the behavior of smaller children in similar social situations.) (And that wasn't a pop at you, Danny. It's just true, that's all..and we both know it.) 050727 ... my two cents worth ok I read this and I only have one comment for Danny why do you say we have to require higher proof to belief things are true when youve already decided that a lot of things are true with no proof at all? how much research have you done into astrology or numerology or any of those things? is that what you mean by putting things to a higher standard of proof to believe them? who are you quoting when you laugh at stuff that you never really looked into? I guess it just sounds to me like you are repeating something you read somewhere because you havent taken the time to check things out for yourself. you could form your own opinion instead of adopting everyone else's. 050727 ... DannyH I'm sorry if you feel I'm mocking you Daffy. I have to admit I do that. It's a bad habit. The piece you just posted was well written but I feel all you are saying is that it's good to believe in things. But we can't just believe in everything. We have to choose which things are true and which are false. I simply refuse to accept that you just happen to know what is true, just because you say you do. I'm sorry, Daffy but you're in the same relativistic world as the rest of us. And I will NEVER accept from ANYONE the idea that it is wrong for me to voice an alternative opinion or question anyone who claims to have absolute truth. I consider it my duty and right so to do. But what worries me is that I knew a Daffy who knew this, one who in fact took this point to it's extreme, directly challenging people threatening suicide and refusing to listen to all those who told him his opinion was not valid or wanted. I thought that guy was objectionable, courageous and interesting. I don't recognise this new dogmatic Dafremen. In fact I have decided to take it as my inviolable truth that his brain has been taken over by space aliens. 050727 ... DannyH Oh and to two cents worth, how do you know I know nothing about these things? I'm sorry about the copper bracelet gag. Obviously that hit a raw nerve. I've looked into astrology in some depth and read enough numerology textbooks to get a sore shoulder from falling off my chair laughing. I found nothing to make me abandon what I have learned of mainstream physics and mathematics within the texts I read. 050727 ... a few pennies more so i went to what_is_art and found this "A classic tactic of social politics (and sign of a weak argument or weak participant) is to find an appropriately derogatory label and attempt to apply it to an opponent in order to discredit them. It's akin to a similar tactic that most of us see everyday and that some folx actually USE everyday: laughing at what someone else says in a brute force attempt at discrediting them without resorting to logic or facts. The beauty of it is, they can always deny that their INTENTION was to discredit." bahahahahahahahahaha boy did you nail that one! 050727 ... DannyH Oh don't get me wrong. It IS my intention to discredit things I do not agree with. And the thing is, you DO see adverts for copper bracelets in all those new age magazines... 050727 ... DannyH "(You'll notice a similarity to the behavior of smaller children in similar social situations.)" And isn't this another example of the same kind of rhetorical device, labelling my expression as childish. Personally I don't mind. I like the humour and the denigration. It adds colour to the argument in my opinion, but if you're ruling it out of bounds maybe you shouldn't use it yourself. 050727 ... DannyH Also, whoever you are jumping in to Daffy's defence, I really wouldn't worry. We've been locking horns in what I hope is a manner of friendly but spirited verbal jousting periodically for over four years now and I can tell you he is quite capable of handling anything I throw at him. 050727 ... daf It appears as though we have a third party Danny. Perhaps, through your habitual reactions you will find a glimmering hope to know the truth about me in your own words, my friend. "But what worries me is that I knew a Daffy who knew this, one who in fact took this point to it's extreme, directly challenging people threatening suicide and refusing to listen to all those who told him his opinion was not valid or wanted. I thought that guy was objectionable, courageous and interesting." Since you insist, and for old time's sake,(and since the ego wants to be let out for a romp) let's get into this: What makes you think for a second that any of that has changed? Here I am, being objectionable (you and others apparently object), courageous (you think it was easy for a software engineer, PC repair tech and part time philosopher to come on spouting what sounds like a load of New Age horsesh*t?) and, if you knew the background behind these changes in opinion and perspective, the things I've seen, the people I've met...you might think this was the most interesting thing since sliced bread. See that's the thing Danny. I was standing where you are now. Then I experienced something...saw it and had it proven to me beyond all reasonable doubts. Not by a person either. By the very world around me. Again..how do I explain this to you? How could I possibly bring you from standing where I was, to standing where I am now? I cannot, and any attempts to do so are probably futile. How can you be brought understand that? Again, another thing learned along the way during this incredible and unbelieveable experience. No Danny, I cannot convince you of anything and have no desire to anymore. I've wasted too much of my time trying to make decisions that were never mine to make in the first place. So what is it Danny? Is it that I am inflexible and dogmatic in my beliefs? No Danny. That is the tendency we have to stick people who speak like I do into a box called inflexible and dogmatic. On the contrary Danny. I WAS where you are. Now I am here. I thought I knew many of the things that you think you know. Something happened. It's wasn't a matter of thinking harder or being smarter. It was just something that passed through my life and changed it forever. See, I chose to embrace the change, IN SPITE of my beliefs. These newly experienced truths are so out of phase with what I thought to be real that to say I am inflexible and dogmatic borders on an injustice. I have been flexible beyond all belief. I have moved with the winds as they carried me through the pages of the Book of Life, freely succumbing to that which could not be disproven, to know if there lay knowledge there. Do you have ANY idea how many times I've had to reverse my opinions? Change my beliefs? Alter my way of thinking? Do you know what a HYPOCRITE that can make a person look like? Do you see me flinching for fear of being labelled a hypocrite? Do you see me hesitating for fear of being called a nut? A quack? Of having people who, at one time respected my intellect, my judgement, my ability to reason, of having those same people shake their heads and snicker? I would say f*ck you Danny...but that would be another me. A long gone guy who could only see the value of his own intellect. Could only see the value of his own words and his own beliefs and his own opinions. No Danny, you do not know my conflicts. You do not know the heaped atrocities that build up little by little, day by day on one who chooses not to believe what we have all so stubbornly clung to all of these centuries. And yes Danny, as undiplomatic and certainly UNBRITISH as it may be, I am calling you a liar on the subject of your investigation of astrology. Your description of that investigation was the only clue I needed. To be kind, perhaps it wasn't so much a lie, as it was an over exaggeration. You didn't research Danny. You read a book, maybe even just a few chapters and called it "a higher standard." I performed 162 interviews after reading over 20 books on the subject before reaching the conclusion that there was something to astrology. To this day, my investigation continues. How much of it is good information? How much of it has been tainted with superstition and dogma? These are my questions because I will NOT let some DOGMATIC empirical minds tell me what I should or should not "waste" my time investigating. Those root characteristics which you remember have not changed or disappeared Danny. You simply ended up on the wrong side of the facts..and you have the majority supporting you so its more difficult for you to see that. It is NO coincidence that there are 50 fortune 500 companies whose sales departments own copies of SolarFire (an astrology program that generates chart interpretations in plain English for the non-astrologer.) Solarfire goes for about $400. I wonder how you justify an expense like that for an astrology program? I have it here Danny. If you'd like a chart. That's all it takes. But you'll likely pass old chum. Just as you and those like you claim that astrology buffs try to find facts to support their claims...you will look for those that support your own. Both camps are dogmatic and inflexible and if I gave it more than a few moments thought at a time the behavior of all of you would make me sick. But there's too much to do to judge, and too many people in need of something real to start licking my wounds just yet. So to anyone else that wishes to call me dogmatic, opinionated and inflexible..try to determine why you're so adamant in your rejection of me just because my opinion is not your own. the law requires me to say that this information is FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY I wonder why that is? That's all yer getting out of me Dan. 050727 ... daf And no Dan. Using the terms copper bracelets..etc is not the same as saying that small children tend to engage in cruel sociopolitical games when they argue. One statement relies on the general public's perception of astrology, numerology and (oh this was the good one you tossed in to put it over the top) copper bracelets. Whereas what I said was a fact. A plain, demonstrable fact. I have never espoused numerology nor have I supported the claims of copper bracelet hawkers. Can you see the difference now? I hope so, because there'll be no use in us trying to see eye to eye if you're going to keep yours closed. 050727 ... DannyH To reply to your last point first, I remember reading something by you some time ago which involved some numerology tied in with some stuff about christianity being derived from an older heretical religion. I forget what the blathe was, please forgive me if I have misunderstood you. My research into the subject of astrology has clearly been nowhere near so exhaustive as yours. In my youth, however, I was quite fascinated by both the supernatural and the world of magic performance and con tricks. I must admit I didn't read anything much deeper than Linda Goodman and although my research into the tarot was a little deeper I have forgotten a lot of what I read. As I say, I rejected it some time ago so haven't kept up. I worked for many years as a bookshop manager and maintained some acquaintance with everything in our "alternative" section whilst not, I admit, reading everything all the way through. The thing that really tipped it for me, however, was not my research into astrology itself but my acquaintance with a number of performing magicians who explained to me in great detail the way the effects of palm reading, astologers, psychics and mediums could be replicated using magic techniques aided by the findings of various groups of psychologists over the years. The calssic experiment being one in which a group of people are given a piece of personal description and asked to rate it out of ten for how much it relates specifically to them as opposed to most people. The results are always in the 8-10 out of ten range for this piece of writing which is, of course, the same piece for each person, written by a psychologist as an amalgam of published pieces of astology. I found this experiment very compelling evidence for the idea that whilst astrology may indeed embody some general psychological truths, it has no connection to where or when you were born. After coming to this conclusion I reread with an open mind every general description of each star sign's characteristics and realised that I could find in each of them a pretty good description of me as I had been at one time or another. I took a long time coming to this conclusion and, like you, changed my beliefs along the way. I'm sure you will consider this insufficient to come to the conclusion that astrology is unfounded and I bow to your greater knowledge of the subject. Much of this strand has related to a rather flippant comment I made which I've already apologised for and like you, I suspect, have no further wish to debate. I think I understand a bit more where you're coming from with this whole strand. You seem to be describing an experience you had which has left you with (and I'm finding it hard to avoid the word perception here) a knowledge (will that do) of a truth which is based not on perception or belief but is some other kind of pure unadulterated truth of a kind which I have certainly never experienced. This kind of truth is something philosophers have been searching for, and debating the existence of since there have been philosophers. If you truly have found it, you are indeed fortunate. I have no way to tell. The truth as you express it, has had to be filtered through my perceptions, and as it arrives to me it sounds like gobbledegook. I appreciate that you contend this is because I am using my false and biased perceptions and beliefs to interpret it and therefore am unable to see it for what it is. Now please don't take this as a rhetorical attack but you must understand I have no way, other than with my perceptions to distinguish what you say from the apparant revelations that the psychotic or the drug affected may have. I'm not saying you are either of those things, only that such people describe exactly the same experiences of pure truth, entirely self-generated and free of critical filtering. I have to assume these people are self deceived, otherwise I am forced to believe that all apparantly delusional people are experiencing the truth. I can't find any way to accomodate that. 050728 ... daf Very good Danny. Thank you. That's all a person could ask for is the benefit of the doubt. Yes, it was something like that and it knocked me to my knees. I've been dealing with it ever since, even delving into relative insanity a couple of times along the way. I won't lie to you and tell you that everything is clear. Far from it. Still, these few revelations out of nowhere filled in more pieces of the puzzle than I had been able to in 30 years of searching. It was wild. It was insane. But it was what it was. As for my ability to perceive things clearly. I do not claim that your ability to do so is any better or worse than my own. Somehow I got a glimpse past the "veil" of our distorted conceptions and conditioning. It didn't last long, but I know how it happened, I know what triggered the changes. But they sound so f*cking cliche Danny. When I repeat the steps, people look at me like I'm trying to convert them or something. There is a very real "mechanism" in the human psyche that is triggered by following many of the things that we have been taught are conventional "morality." I don't believe morality has anything to do with it. I believe you do not steal because to do so demonstrates a lack of control over the animal self. It's allowing your horse to eat his way through the farmer's market. I believe we fast to show the animal body that it is to obey, not to order. I believe that we do not covet, that we honor, that we keep our hearts with God or the Flow or the Creation or whatever you want to call It, because that is how we align ourselves with what we really are, which is more human than animal, as much spiritual as physical...more so eventually. And I believe...having experienced it first hand, that to WILLINGLY and JOYFULLY practice these things somehow brings about not just a psychological transformation, but something much more profound. Something more than they're offering down at the church. A transformation that clears the mind (with its distorted perceptions and faulty conditioning) out of the way and allows the TRUE sentience to see things as they really are. As usual, this attempt to describe it has failed miserably. This has been the curse of people that find this Danny. Trying to communicate it. Every time they do, someone takes the words and makes them something they weren't meant to be. The Christians did it, the Buddhists, the Muslims...sheesh. How do you communicate this? How? It's not about religion...it's about evolution. It's really that simple. Sigh. 050728 ... REAListic optimIST How do you communicate subjective experience? There are as many paths as there are people, and as many perceptions of that path as there are copper bracelets for sale. All you can do is communicate the sense of rightness you've experienced and work to describe your experiences and the resulting revelations in as metaphorical and descriptive terms as possible so that when someone else has experienced something similar they can relate. The difficult part is to not come off as if you are spouting Truth with a capital "T" because when people hear such haughtiness, they tune out what you are saying. This is because it is a subjective judgement. Now perhaps there are Absolute Truths. However, if that is so, then people will divine that Truth on their own, but all this talk of seeing behind the veils that blind everyone else may cause some who are on the verge of giving what you say a fair shake to turn away in disgust from what they perceive as yet another person preaching to them what their own truth should hold. I speak from experience. I used to write a column entitled "Daily Epiphany." It was supposed to be tongue in cheek, but people did not pick up on my dry self mockery, and so they discounted what I said because they felt I believed I was speaking from a position of higher ground. Your first reaction might be "Well fuck em if they let that tune them out to the real message behind what I'm saying." And I won't say I haven't shared that sentiment many times over. However, since you are posting here on blather; clearly you intend to communicate your experiences to others, and perhaps you would like to widen the scope of your audience. I hope you find this criticism to be constructive. Thank you for working to share your experiences and revelations with us. says: Be Love 050728 ... daf Your criticisms are always constructive RO. And of course, you're right about results. Still some people tune out and pounce, and that's an interesting opportunity for anyone communicating..because you've got their attention. You'll find me trying to do the sort of thing you describe in some_kind_of_journey. Now the capital T belongs where it belongs. This isn't dogmatic clinging so much as it is refusal to call a cat a horse. I suppose that's more of a failing on my part than anything elses. Still there is something about shellacking over things to appease unreasonable attitudes that is disturbing. Thanks again. 050728 ... oldephebe We can tear our shirts and show one another the scars, we can invoke hazy and dubious claims of a subjective sense of morality, we can inscribe the fury of our compositions upon the embered parchments of blather, and still to others all of our erudite and sagacious reflections and assertions might as well be remote abstractions to others just as supremely convinced that they are making the "winning argument." Pages upon pages of blather illustrate the insourmountable difficulty one can encounter in preaching into the Others hard wired prejudice wich can read "survival instinct" We can drown one another in perfect flawless reasoning and yet it still woulnd't be enough to expunge the stain of prejudice (not the racial or ethnic or class or other kinds of bias towards othe groups and or classifications of people and things, but the prejudice in us about never relenting our position, in an argument or disputation because we're hard wired to win, to equate losing with dying, with an irrevocable and significant dimunition of ourselves. Somewhere in the subterranian depths of our subconscious the not quite shriveled ghost from our past, some ogre or shrieking harpy, some authority figure or bully from our past begins to shriek, when we are challenged and so like herons wading into the water we are impelled to clench our heart and fists and close our ears revisit that enclave in time when we were batted against the wall emotionally and we redeem, we REDEEM that child by screaming, by screeching our recalcitrance, our defiance of thier power and victory into the argument of another who played no part in creating our primal pain. And then sometimes its just 'cause we're stubborn SOB's. Sooooooooooooo... ... 050729 ... methinks thine To no one in particular: Is your pride in competition with someone else's pride? I know mine is. I believe there is a direct and immutable corrolary between the extent to which we are irritated at anothers grandiosity of self-expression or read "showing off", ignoring us or trying to placate our implied inferior argumetn or assertion with a kind of condescension that is reserved for the cognititvely impaired, or the unbright child whose flickering dim light is eclipsed by its over-achieving siblings. "I wanted to be the one who made the big noise at the party!" ... another potentially morally dubious intrusion by the pious hand of oldephebe ... 050729 ... oldephebe sould have read: "methinks thine argument hath a seam or doth it be a rupture wide as a canyon" but it was too long for a tag and i inadvertantly hit enter before i could finish deleting it via the packspace key anyway when i ecshew critical analysis to fly the tattered banner of humanism, it's kind of like putting forth a great sounding musical phrase accompanied by a brilliant arrangement but the vocals are kind of unintelligable. Someone: "Yeah oldphebe, this is strictly a rational disputation, so take your encrusted patriarchal and obsolescent incantations of equanimity and humanism and put them in a great grey sack and leave, quietly. You won't disturb even the air when you go." ... 050729 ... daf More than a few would try to persuade you to stay. And yes, you seem to have hit a nail on the head. Have you ever wanted to help someone because you learned something useful that might be helpful to them? And you try to tell them, but they won't listen? And so then things go all wrong and they look at you like "Don't you say it.." and you're thinking, "I told you so is the very last thing I want to say. I just want to help you because I care, not because I look down on you. Please let me help you next time, so that I don't have to watch you suffer this way again." They rarely take it that way though. Sigh 050729 ... oldephebe Absolutely daf. But our beings are bound in strong iron chains, it is...difficult for us, for ME to leave the temple of our own of sacred and vaunted wind, the wind that casts out all else except for the sound of our own suffering. It is...difficult for us to cast off the armor of our own hubris and presumed infallability, we remain nose over toes until we get that little nudge and finally fall onto the floor, but like me, a lot of us will not remove the sharp knife of agony from our sides. We imagine our thoughts, our words are like Glory, like shimmering dew freshly dropped from the finger tips of God. But in essence what they are merely bubbles cresting the slender surface of staid creek water. How long will we swim around in the ejaculate of own fury at our frailty, a frailty we will never concede, and so then we remain bound, dragging the cords of iron and steel around the ash pile of cinders, the dead embers of our agonized breaths sighed loudly from the forge of our Art, the Art, Our Art of protesting loudly against the possibility, against the perfect empiricism of the inadequacy of our instincts in the very face of reason. Howl, howl Howl, the undisguised chaos of an embittered, embattled and brittle mind. The Being at it's recalcitrant, heroic best writhing free of any imposed or suggested dictums of order, conduct..whatever..it has its OWN morality and will cede it to no one or nothing. (Yay for the irrational (that puts on the pristine cloak of a methodology of heuristic hubris that appears seemingly rational, but it is only rational to the extent that it is an ordered operation/function that is NEVER departed from and achieves its' imperative perfectly) construct that succeeds in imprisoning our minds, our bound up beings in its Divine Mist that separates us from the ministrations of others that in some cases would emeliorate our suffering and achieve the efficient elegant solution we desire. ... 050802 ... ah.. ameliorate not emeliorat 050802 ... dafremen Yea! 050802 ... jackie "hallucino-jesus" mc cracken so then is all of existence in a presupposed state like schrodinger's_cat ???? if i perceive something, is the unreal until is it obvious and unavoidable??? 050802 ... self correcting is "IT" unreal until... 050802 ... oE jackie the hallucinogenic jesus mckracken wow how'd you fit all of that in? somewhere up there i think there's a riff on heidigerarian phenomenology or something...i'm not too well versed in philosophy soo..not really qualified to take an informed stab at that question, you know because of all the moralizing ... 050802 ... oldephebe hey man or gal, it's a pretty diverse current.. You know? existentialism..so..i pretty much prefer literary depictions, illustrations of existentialist thought. Dostoyevski and Tolstoy among others strike me as some of the more brilliant architects of plaintive... Bah! i'm a quirky guy and so now i'm off again on my quest to pursue the perfect linguistic and syntactic prophylactic carraige of opaque expression so as not to expose my supperating soul...what? to late for that now? and now...i'm just all hot tears spattering the page ... 050802 ... daf If it's not to presumptious, I'll take a stab at the question. First, it is necessary to clarify a few misconceptions. The first is this notion of future and past tense. Although within the confines of the ego and its realm of experience, there seems to exist such a thing, in reality there is cyclic time, not linear time and there is no past or future, only the present. If you break it down, what appear to be past recollections are really only stored off slices of a previously experienced moment in time that existed in the present tense only. It never existed in the past tense. Only in our minds does that happen. Now the future is a bit trickier. For certainly one could say that there is a consant stream of present moments and so future must be a real concept. Again, however, there is no "Experiencing of the future" ahead of time EXCEPT within the confines of the mind. When you make a decision, you do so in the present tense only. The consequences ONLY occur in the present tense. Secondly, what you are experiencing is a portion of the unfolding of existence. It is happening, at any given moment, more or less as it has always happened around this time in the cycle. So are you just going through the motions? No. You're acting out the part that was meant for you as it was meant to be played by you. You cannot avoid that which cannot be avoided nor can you hit that which can't be hit. 050802 ... oldephebe god, i started perusing hiedegers 1927 manifest "Being and esitence" or something like that. It seemed kinda interesting but there was something souless and waaaay too clinical about, on some gut level i sensed there was more to the heideger question. i did not know or had since forgotten that Heideger has been credited with being the philosophical architect of Nazism. oldephebe ---------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------- In the weird metaphysical grotesquerie which constitutes Heidegger's "ontological difference," the Philosopher of Nazism distinguishes between an entity (das Seiende) and the being (das Sein) of an entity. He calls this distinction the "ontological difference." An entity, [a being] for Heidegger is on the one hand, anything that is or can be, whether it be physical, spiritual, or whatever, for example, God, human beings, socialism, and the number nine are all entities, and on the other [ontological] hand he posits the "Being" of an entity, which has to do with the so-called "is-ness" or "existence" of whatever is. For him, "Being" designates what an entity is or entities are, how it/they is/are, and the fact that it/they is/are at all. (1.) THE FIRST PSYCHOPATHY. THE MEANING OF THE WORD "ENTITY. Heidegger's deranged insistence on his own idiosyncratic meaning of the word "entity, as being anything that is or can be, whether it be physical, spiritual, or whatever. For example, God, human beings, socialism, and the number nine are all entities according to Heidegger. The fact that the majority of mankind think differently means nothing to him. For the common man, the average Joe, the word "entity" means: "That which is perceived or known or inferred to have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving) and is not to be confused when used in the "corporate" sense, when it is coupled with an adjective such as "business" as in: a "Business entity," which is a technical term, and means something entirely different - a body corporate (a company), a corporation sole (an ongoing paid office, for example a bishopric), a body politic, a partnership, an unincorporated association or body of persons, a trust, or a superannuating fund. This is in direct conflict with the dictionary definitions in all human languages. (2) THE SECOND PSYCHOPATHY THE "BEING" OF AN "ENTITY AND HIS INABILITY TO GRASP THE "IS-MECHANISM." "The being of an entity, on the other hand, for Heidegger has to do with the "is" of whatever is. "Being" designates what an entity is, how it is, and the fact that it is at all. Here Heidegger is TOTALLY confused, for he already admits in "Basic Concepts" that he has no idea at all what "is" is. (A) "But wherein lies the "is"? What does it mean, what does it consist in, that the weather "is" and that it "is" fine? The fine weather — that I can be glad about, but the "is"? What am I to make of it?" (B) "But the "is" -where in all the world am I supposed to find it, where am I supposed to look for something like this in the first place? (C) "The leaf is green. " I find the green of the leaf in the leaf itself. But where is the "is"? I say, nevertheless, the leaf "is"- it itself, the leaf. Consequently the "is" must belong to the visible leaf itself. But I do not "see" the "is" in the leaf, for it would have to be coloured or spatially formed. Where and what "is" the "is"? Finally Heidegger admits defeat and washes his hands of any further attempts at an understanding of "is." (D) "Let's stay with beings; wanting to think about the "IS" "is" mere quibbling. Or instead if I intentionally steer clear of a simple answer to the question as to where the "is" can be found." Martin Heidegger. "Basic Concepts." (3) THE THIRD PSYCHOPATHY. HEIDEGGER'S CONFUSED COALESCENCE OF "PURE" EXISTENCE AND EXISTENTIAL MODALITY. The existential modality of an entity, on the other hand, has to do with the "is" of whatever is instantiated by the nominative indication of the denotatum. For example: "The apple is red." "Being" for Heidegger designates an additional ontological dimension, (a) what an entity is, (an apple) (b) how it is, {red} and (3) the ("pure") fact that it is at all. This is his high point of confusion, for the fact that it is at all [its "pure" existence] is a Chimaera, for no entity is a thing at all without being the entity it is, and the way it is. So the fact that "it is at all" [its "pure" existence] is an ontological redundancy. NO entity can exist "purely" (as an an ideal - featureless template - a stripped being - an esse expoliatum) without existing in a particular fashion, way, form, combination of states or modalities, or without what the scholastics referred to as an "essence," or "properties," for otherwise it would be nameless - a nameless non-existing unspecified non-entity. Heidegger's ontological difference simply recapitulates the esse expoliatum banality of traditional religion and philosophy. The medieval scholastics, for example, had already clearly distinguished between ens and esse, just as the ancient Greeks before them had distinguished between to on and ousia. But Heidegger gives this tradition a "phenomenological" dimension, and switched the understanding of "Being" from the mere "thereness" of entities, their simple existence in space and time (this is what he calls Vorhandenheit, [Existing-ness] the "mere presence" of entities). Obviously Medieval/Scholastic thinkers were aware of this notion of the modal aspect of the ‘be’ conjugation, but only did so with reference to a distinction between ‘being’ and ‘existence,’ within the assumption that ‘being’ refers to all the possible modes of a thing's existence, whereas ‘existence,’ refers only to the ‘mere fact’ that it exists, and hence the second is only a ‘lowly predicate.’ In other words, ‘Being’ refers to ‘that by which something exists,’ the underlying "substance" which makes entitic reality possible, and ‘existence’ tells us ‘whether it exists,’ as the basis of the Latin distinction between essentia and esse respectively. Heidegger was never able to grasp that this distinction is a grotesque product of the a warped ontological imagination which stemmed from his original inability to understand "is," and his eventual recognition of his incompetence, which he amazingly committed to paper in the manner of an amazing public confession of frustration and defeat at his ontological Battle of Waterloo. Jud Evans From "The Three Psychopathies of Heidegers' Ontology" 050802 ... C'mon Dan. Put down the Scotch. You know who "my two cents worth" is. The self proclaimed Guru of Blather. 050803 ... dafremen Ever notice how many of our most venomous opinions come from anonymous cowards? If what they were saying was so forthright and noble, would they be hiding behind the shield of anonymity? Some would say that it is a person's right to protect their freedom of expression, by hiding their name if they so choose. But that is out there, where brute force prevails, not here. Here it has always been those who spoke their minds publicly, name attached, WITHOUT THOUGHT to the societal consequences, that have secured our rights to free speech, not the nameless; quivering at the thought that they might be rejected for their words. Those who maintain their distance from their words,rob them of their soul. Ni modo. The baile must go on, and the dancers must dance. 050803 ... My point exactly. 050803 ... marked . 050817 ... Christ without the cross You are all so right. And i must admit that you make me proud to be human. It excites me to see such courage, such overwhelming strenght. I love hearing the voice, the spirit, the mind. We are all one. I will not get preachy on this because this is my perception. I can see the same truth in all your words, in all your thoughts. What surprises me is that, as i have observed, many don't seem to notice. But keep on talking. Express the inexpressible and you will see the truth of God. Words are constructions. Man has constructed them. I understand your frustration Daf. it is difficult to express the boundless with boundaries and limitations such as words. Constructions are only neccessary in the world of the relative not in the world of the absolute. Experience seems to be the strongest expression of the infinite. We are eternal. We are powerful beyond measure. We are love. This makes us always on the same level. So no matter who speaks as an authority (this is a desire of all beings) and no matter who places themselves above others, remember this simple truth (you are free to call it a lie) we are all covering the same ground and we are all pursuing the same end and we are all on the same level with the same amount of road left to travel. INFINITY. We possess it all and we may never have the experience of possessing all that we possess. Or we will. Impossibilites are possible. Truth is everything. Everything is God. 060926 ... . "Impossibilities are possible." Long ago, I did not understand this. Now it seems the one lone truth. 061125 ... - - 080625 ... minnesota_chris but our perceptions, and the perceptions of those around us, is our best guess at the real reality 080625 ... dafremen Not according to most of humanity's deepest thinkers. "The self-confidence of the warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability in his own eyes and calls that humbleness. The average man is hooked to his fellow men, while the warrior is hooked only to infinity." - Carlos Castaneda "Your vision will become clear only when you look into your heart. Who looks outside, dreams. Who looks inside, awakens." - Carl Jung "If the doors of perception were cleansed, everything would appear as it is - infinite" - William Blake "It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." - C.W. Leadbetter "To begin with, our perception of the world is deformed, incomplete. Then our memory is selective." - Claude Simon "Blessed are they who see beautiful things in humble places where other people see nothing." - Camille Pisarro And finally..from perhaps the greatest radical mind that consensual reality ever embraced..Albert Einstein: "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen." "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education." "Education is what remains after one has forgotten everything he learned in school." "Imagination is more important than knowledge." "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." 080625 ... f if perception is not reality then how can anyone define what reality is? It's like an ongoing challenge to understand what understanding is and why we need to know what reality is, sometimes it is bliss just to be. just be. 080625 ... daf Perhaps the need to define things is part or even ALL of the problem.. 080625 ... unhinged the diamond_sutra in one sentence 080710 ... SleepieCloud but if no one can percieve reality, is it really real? or even important. 080711 ... unhinged the tathagata , the bhagavan , the sugata , the buddha can see reality. that is what it means to be called thus. that one is awakened to reality, that perception, delusion, suffering no longer obscures the truth of impermanence and interdependence. 080712 ... somebody i doubt it is possible to see, or know, the ultimate reality. ever. not even if one is buddha. i don't think it is even possible to see "50%" of reality. the summation of all human understanding is likely but an infinitisemal grasp on All that Is. to claim otherwise seems rather arrogant, not to mention silly. 080712 ... unhinged but that's the definition of a buddha 'one that is awake' 080712 ... unhinged also when one becomes a buddha, they leave their humanness behind to be human is to be arrogant, willful, rude, stupid, deluded, attached, suffering, strapped with self, ego. to think that there aren't beings in the universe that can see and understand ultimate reality seems silly to me. 080712 ... somebody ultimately it is contigent upon whether or not there IS an "ultimate reality" to be known. it is a matter of belief; no one can be certain. i do not believe there is one; i say this because i have seen no evidence pointing towards an ultimate reality AND the very idea of it strikes me as counterintuitive. certainly there are others who, exposed to the same information as i, feel that an ultimate reality is both evidenced and intuitive. one definition of "arrogance" is that of false claims to knowledge. i'm not saying you are an arrogant person, because i know you are not. but to claim that there is an ultimate reality when it cannot be unequivocally demonstrated is, per that definition, arrogant. of course this fact swings back and strikes me in the face. for, all the same, i cannot claim to "know" that there is NOT an ultimate reality. arrogance abounds, it seems. i suppose we are all rather silly for getting hung up on the matter. 080712 ... unhinged i'm not hung up on it. the word faith comes to mind. just pointing out the other side of the coin. it's arrogant to assume that there is something bigger than what i can see? it's arrogant to assume that because i am only human, i couldn't possibly be seeing the whole picture? 080714 ... somebody to me it seems so, yes. 080714 ... somebody (but given the sheer number of religious and/or science folks who feel they personally have managed a special insight into the ultimate nature of existence, i am clearly in a small minority.) 080714 ... unhinged your coin must be different than mine (and by the way, i just finished reading a holy book and it kinda permeated my brain. sorry if i sounded like i was evangelizing or something. there is something about that religion that resonates in me loudly. it feels like truth) 080714 ... They call me Truth I see what you are saying somebody. It is very common to come across someone that believes that they know the way to understanding some objecting ultimate reality. Whether there is or there isn’t I am open to either possibility, but I do believe that those who see this “ultimate reality” or know the way to finding it, are seeing and understanding more of their own personal reality, how they see things, and what they believe. In my opinion, perception is personal, and yes, reality is a personal interpretation of life (I am talking about reality in the more abstract sense). Given the same evidence two people can arrive at totally different interpretation. At first I thought that Christianity was truth, until I was honest with myself and realized that it wasn’t mine. I did not believe it was the ultimate reality. I find Buddhist teaching to be a very impressive interpretation of life (more so than a lot of other religions), but I don’t see much of a difference between its teachings and when a Christian says that people should relinquish their fleshly desires and live in the spirit, which most often means to be “selfless” which could be interpreted as “without self.” You can arrive at a place through a certain path, and that path may be perfect for you. The problem is when you assume that that path is perfect for everyone else. I do believe that the qualities of an enlightened person are beautiful qualities, but I believe that one can arrive at such a place by both losing themselves or by finding themselves. It depends on the individual. 080715 ... some other body "Truth"s last coupl'a sentences really work for me. 080715 ... past perception is learned, reality is constructed. 080715 ... daf This is true..this is real..all evidence supports it: All things return to their source in one fashion or another.. See also: of_fate 080716 ... minnesota_chris I made a really good effort to read what y'all wrote back there. (no, nevermind, i have nothing to say.) 080730 ... daf Few know the follow up to the story of the blind men and the elephants, but since you have been so patient for so long, through so much, fellow blatherskites..here it is without all of the accompanying pre and postamble: Unable to resolve the dispute, the blind men came before King Solomon with their argument. He commanded them each to pluck a hair from their various "elephants" and bring them to him without adornment and without discussion. The blind men agreed, and sent their messengers came back to Solomon with the hair of their religion only, not the rhetoric, or the ceremony. He placed all of the hairs in a box and shook it. Then he opened the box and told the messengers to pick out their hair and return it to the teacher who had sent it. When the messengers tried to comply, they realized that all of the hairs were identical, and so their choices were all guesses, for no hair could be distinguished from the others. After the confusion had settled down and they'd chosen a hair each, Solomon told them this: "Return and tell your blind masters what you have learned here. It is their blindness that has them arguing with each other. But you see that the hairs are the same and that their argument is foolish. So now, turn from their teaching and go learn what an elephant is." 230319 what's it to you? who go blather from